PEOPLE v. FAHEY (2021)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.2021-12-22No. 2019-02474

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment is affirmed. Although the trial court's advisement regarding waiver of the right to appeal was inadequate, appellate review was not precluded, and the court properly denied suppression of the defendant's statements to law enforcement.

The defendant appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree and course of sexual conduct against a child following a guilty plea, challenging the trial court's decision to deny his motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement. The defendant had signed a written waiver of appeal rights, but the appellate court found the trial court's explanation of that waiver was insufficient. The court determined that the trial judge's brief discussion with the defendant failed to clarify that the right to appeal is distinct from other rights waived through a plea agreement, and that a waiver does not absolutely prevent someone from appealing. The written waiver form also lacked language addressing these important distinctions.

Despite finding the waiver defective, the appellate court proceeded to review the suppression issue and upheld the trial court's decision. The court concluded that the defendant's statements to law enforcement were properly admitted because the record did not show that the questioning created a substantial risk the defendant would falsely confess to a crime he did not commit.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
Whether the trial court adequately explained that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from other waived rights
Whether statements to law enforcement should be suppressed as the product of interrogation risking false incrimination

Procedural posture

The defendant appealed a September 2018 conviction entered upon his guilty plea in Supreme Court, Nassau County, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Teresa K. Corrigan, J.), rendered September 6, 2018, convicting him of rape in the first degree and course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendants omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the defendants relatively limited experience with the criminal justice system, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see People v. Adyl K., 187 A.D.3d 1208, 1209, 131 N.Y.S.3d 642; People v. Zaffuto, 138 A.D.3d 1156, 1156–1157, 28 N.Y.S.3d 897). The Supreme Courts terse oral colloquy with the defendant concerning the waiver failed to advise him that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from other rights that are automatically waived in connection with taking a plea bargain, and that a waiver of the right to appeal was not an absolute bar to the taking of an appeal (see People v. Seymour, 189 A.D.3d 1269, 1270, 134 N.Y.S.3d 211; People v. Cruz, 177 A.D.3d 766, 767, 110 N.Y.S.3d 312). Moreover, the written waiver of appeal form signed by the defendant did not overcome these deficiencies in the courts explanation, as it did not contain language clarifying these matters (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970; People v. Brown, 195 A.D.3d 943, 146 N.Y.S.3d 514). As such, appellate review of the denial of that branch of the defendants motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials is not precluded (see People v. Garcia, 189 A.D.3d 879, 881, 137 N.Y.S.3d 136).

The Supreme Court properly denied suppression of the statements the defendant made to law enforcement officials, as the record does not support his contention that those statements were the result of an interrogation which created a substantial risk that he might falsely incriminate himself (see People v. Thomas, 22 N.Y.3d 629, 641–642, 985 N.Y.S.2d 193, 8 N.E.3d 308; People v. Smith, 193 A.D.3d 770, 771, 141 N.Y.S.3d 869).

DILLON, J.P., BARROS, WOOTEN and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.